Too Much To Democracy…the Middle East in Transition

by Richard Vix

A century ago Theodore Roosevelt sent a poem to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. Roosevelt informed Lodge that the poetry wasn’t all that good, but the sentiment was squarely on the mark

“… Take up the White Man’s burden
Send forth the best ye breed
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need…

… Take up the White Man’s burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride….”

Roosevelt’s expansionist fervor was only overshadowed by his willingness for adventurism. Confident that the social, economic, political, and moral fiber of the United States was the cure for what ailed the world TR called for worldwide freedom and then set sail the Great White Fleet to demonstrate our power to any doubters. The age of American imperialism was in its infancy: a hundred years later it is fully maturing. This past February 2nd, George W. Bush stood in his bully pulpit and expounded the virtue of American values and sensibilities as the formula for fixing what ails the Middle East. President Bush claimed “ …the United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else…our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens.” But in the next breath Mr. Bush pledged $350 million to Palestine to develop political, economic, and security reforms to achieve the “two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace”. Mr. Bush believes that all it will take to solve all of the problems in the Middle East is a good dose of democracy. Equating democracy and freedom the President proclaimed, “The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom.” As Yogi Berra would say, “its dejavu all over again.”

A cursory examination of the Middle East might support the current administration’s policy. As the New Year started it appeared that democracy was sprouting throughout the Middle East. Was it possible that on the two year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq that US policy was turning the tide? The death of Arafat lead to the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections in occupied Palestine. The Iraqi elections peacefully proceeded on schedule under American occupation. Independence rallies thronged the streets of Lebanon, Egyptian President Mubarak announced constitutional changes necessary to allow opposition parties, and Saudi Arabia began local village and town elections in a monarchy noted for absolutism not electioneering. When Mr. Bush crowed “we are witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty” he wasn’t far from the mark; or was he?

What we are witnessing in the Middle East is one of two things: the birth of fledgling democracies or pragmatic reform aimed at pacifying western demands backed by the presence of “coalition” forces in the region. It is possible Mr. Bush has these two scenarios confused or in a worse case, he erroneously equates them. It is undeniable that certain Middle Eastern parties would desire reform, but it is difficult to believe these would be sustainable as permanent changes leading to the establishment of true democracies in the Jacksonian or Jeffersonian sense. The difficulty falls on the reality that democracy is not a commodity that can be packaged and exported. That rather vague concept called American democracy is a 1000-year-old process that has evolved from the Magna Carta to the incorporation of the 14th Amendment. What grew in the unique Petri dish of North America is not easily transferable to the century old quagmire called the Middle East. This is a lesson that should have been learned in history. Roosevelt’s adventurism ended with chaos in Cuba and the Philippines that a century of time has not yet set to order. Woodrow Wilson’s idealism of self-determination eventually resulted in dictatorship, despotism, and war.

Change is in the wind in the Middle East. Just what the change amounts to is too early to predict. Palestine as always is the true key to the Middle East, and Mr. Bush is probably well advised on spending time and capital developing reform there. Predictably, Arafat’s successor Mahmond Abbas won the recent PA presidential election. While the election itself could be a positive sign, to some analysts the more encouraging sign was the strong showing of Mustafa Barghouti, a candidate independent, under-funded, and without party connections. Palestinians were for the first time demonstrating a pluralistic approach to electoral government.

Possibly more interesting and a sign of deeper reform was the failure of Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei to push through a cabinet of Arafat supporters as expected. The Palestinian Legislative Counsel instead approved the slate of 24 cabinet officers supported by President Abbas installing what are now being called the “technocrats”, politically inexperienced but highly skilled professionals willing to think outside the box. These political nuances should not be lost on the West. The PA is seriously attempting the reform necessary to fulfill Mr. Bush’s roadmap process.

However, the ability to hold Hamas in check and avoid derailing the peace process is still a large order. Mohammed Ghazel’s announcement that Hamas will take part in this summer’s parliamentary elections has led to fear in Abbas’s ruling Fatah movement that Hamas could sweep the elections. While President Bush has called Hamas a terrorist organization it is emerging as powerful mainstream political force in Palestine. It should also not be lost on the West that one election and one Counsel “revolt” does not constitute a democracy in this most volatile of states. Encouraging signs in Palestine should always be countered with guarded optimism. Mahmond Zahar, Hamas’ top official in Gaza recently warned the West, “our patience will not go on forever.” In the same vein, one of the few bright spots in Iraq was the successful orchestration of the elections. Not only did the election happen on the Bush-Rumsfield schedule, but also it was accomplished with few hitches and limited (comparatively) violence. The election itself was a coup for the Bush Administration. Critics and cynics predicted bloodbaths and endless squabbling on the returns, which did not take place. With over 7000 names on 100 lists the interim government and American forces pulled off nothing short of a miracle. And as in Palestine, the election itself was not necessarily the only highlight; extraneous events were highly noteworthy in themselves. For example, Ayatolloya Ali al-Sistani showed remarkable restraint in allowing the process to unfold without interference. At the same time, Shiites waited in long exposed lines at the polls risking their lives for the opportunity to vote for the first time while the Sunnis quietly disenfranchised themselves.

As encouraging as these factors are, it does not insure democratic rule in Iraq. The interim government must now construct a constitution that will give Sunni minorities partial power while dealing with the powerful Kurdish desire for self-rule. Other Iraqi groups want to insure their rights as minorities. A plethora of Ayatollahs, clerics, tribal sheikhs, and ethnic leaders will have to be somehow included in what can only be described as a hyper-pluralistic maze. In the mean time, the insurrection is showing no sign of fading. The voice of James Madison echoes, “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” The spontaneous anti-Syrian street demonstrations in Lebanon dubbed the “cedar revolution” could also be seen as positive signs that Arabs are no longer willing to put up with dictatorial powers. Sparked by the assassination of reformer Rafik al-Hariri thousands of Lebanese flowed into the streets waving “green cedar” flags. Purportedly the demonstrations were encouraged by the above mentioned elections and signs of reform. The coalition of Sunni, Druze, and Christians who supported Hariri represents an impressive cross section of Lebanese society. Yet like Palestine and Iraq, a wild card exists. Hezbollah, the Shiite party that President Bush has labeled a terrorist organization, would be well supported in any future free election that could occur in Lebanon.

In the March issue of the Washington Report on the Middle East Patrick J. Buchanan purposed that the neo-conservatives in the Defense and State department have an agenda in the Middle East other than building democracy. Buchanan speculates that the “neocons’” real purpose is “Israel and empire”. He believes that the goal is to expand the war to Syria and Iran and to forcibly alter the Arab mindset to embrace reform and stability, all for the benefit of American regional interests. If this is the case and not just a cynical view of our foreign policy, then the question America must ask is just what type of democracy we are willing to accept in the region. With absolutely no regional history of democracy, what will the Arabs devise, if left to their own device?

Potential train wrecks abound in the process of Middle East democracy building. Americans listening to President Bush envision a bottom up democratic movement in the Middle East, much like the “velvet revolution”, the “rose revolution” and more recently the “orange revolution” in the Ukraine. But bottom up change can be dangerous and unpredictable. It takes a strong imagination to envision Secretary Rice trying to negotiate with a Lebanese government headed by Hezbollah, or President Bush sitting down with a Hamas led Palestinian coalition. Shiite majority rule simply reversing Sunni oppression will not lead to stability and may only guarantee American troop entrenchment in Iraq for decades. And while President Bush congratulated the Egyptian nation on the recent constitutional changes, Mubarak will not “show the way toward democracy in the Middle East” if he continues to arrest the now legal opposition party leaders as he did in the case of Ayman Nour.

Bashar Assad could be the least of US problems if and when the people speak in the region. Democracy left unchecked can in itself be fatal. Alexander Hamilton warned, “If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.” After all, the void following British rule in the region led to absolutism.

David Page-Jones asked in the National Review if it was logical to believe that pluralism will result from current democratic reform. In the Middle East today the answer would have to be no. Current top down reform seen in Egypt, Libya, and Saudi Arabia may result in quieting the radicals and appeasing the Bush administration, but it will do nothing towards establishing anything like western democracy. Lebanon’s grassroots reform demonstrations were countered by larger pro-Syrian counter marches that for at least the moment have quieted the cedar revolution. Syria may indeed withdraw from Lebanon as Assad has promised, but what would be created in the vacuum left by the Syrian troops? The occasion of Syrian occupation was after all a bloody civil war that was destabilizing the entire region. With the common enemy removed, would the cedar revolution once again fall into chaos? The July elections in Palestine will be critical now that Hamas has thrown their hats in the ring. One must wonder how democratic a government dominated by “terrorists” could become. And for now, violence and insurrection punctuate the Iraqi question, not constitution building. After the election curfew on travel and movement was removed, the area returned to see the most violent days since the original invasion leaving many Iraqis stunned and helpless.

The Bush Administration is aware of this, and yet as the State of the Union indicates, the second term team is seemingly content. Dr. Rice has announced a shift in tactics toward diplomacy with Iran and Mr. Rumsfield is continuing to wage war at a billion dollars a month pace. If Mr. Bush believes his own State of the Union Address, then the current reforms and increased stability in the region are enough change for his purposes, and window dressing rather than revolution is what we are going to get. Worse yet, it is what the people of the region are going to get…the short end of our big stick. While we can hope that Mr. Buchanan has it all wrong, it appears that what this is all about is what it has always been all about…empire.

“… And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.”